22 October 2009

12-year-old hunter bags a moose


She’s apparently the youngest hunter to legally kill a moose in Minnesota since at least 1922 when the state began restricting moose hunting, said Lou Cornicelli of the Department of Natural Resources. The Legislature last year reduced the minimum age to hunt moose from 16 to 10, opening the door for young hunters like Kelly. And she was the youngest of 104 hunters who registered a moose this season, which ended Sunday.

"I feel really happy and proud,’’ Kelly said Wednesday. "Shooting a moose is an accomplishment whether you’re 12 or 38 – you’re going to put the same amount of effort into it. It’s a big sense of accomplishment because I am 12. The moose is as wide as I am tall. I can sit inside his antlers.’’

Kelly was accompanied by her dad, Jeff, who couldn’t hunt – or even help her call in a moose – because he got a license, and a moose three years ago. A limited number of licenses are issued in a lottery drawing, and since 1991 hunters have been allowed just one in a lifetime.

I have mixed feelings about this story...

More details at the StarTribune.

12 comments:

  1. I have kixed feelings too... How can you be so young and enjoy killing an animal? While I understand killing animals when it comes to regulating a population, or feeding yourself, I really cannot understand this being a leisure. Take a camera instead!

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Shooting a moose is an accomplishment..."

    What kind of an accomplishment? Killing an animal who did you no harm? Killing something because it is bigger than you are?

    Since a lottery is used to determine who is allowed to legally hunt moose in MN, it doesn't sound as though moose are overpopulated and need to be culled.

    And what is the girl and her family planning to do with the moose besides pointing to it as an "accomplishment?" Will they eat the meat, or just mount the head to show off her "accomplishment?"

    Agree with Mademoiselle Titam -- use a camera instead!

    CCL

    ReplyDelete
  3. A little about hunting that you might not know:

    Hunting lotteries are how you keep the population in check without either over or under harvesting. Each state's game department estimates the number of each type of game, decides how many need to be harvested that year, and issues the required number of "tags." It'd be irresponsible, and cruel to the animals to wait until the populations are too large for the land to support before allowing hunting.

    The kill is the least favorite part of the hunt for many hunters. There's no actual joy in taking the life of another animal. There is satisfaction of having been skilled enough to do it, and the joy of being out in nature. And, later, good meals. Moose is great eating, and believe me, the meat doesn't go to waste.

    The difference between harvesting a moose and going to the store for a steak is that the moose got to live free for a while, and the hunter takes the responsibility for the killing and dressing himself rather than paying someone else to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Amen, Wayne. Thanks for clarifying that for the non-hunters out there. I look forward to deer season this year to get out into nature and enjoy some quite and solitude for once. I also look forward to "bringing home the bacon" for my friends and family. Hunting is an important fundraiser for environmental protection and for the preservation of a comfortable way of life for the animals that remain. Starvation caused by over-population is a cruel way to let an animal die. I know several rangers and conservation officials and they all care very deeply about the environment and the animals they protect. I can assure you they only allow hunting for the good of the animal herds as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Of course, moose, deer, and other herbivores wouldn't need culling in order to maintain a stable and healthy population if hunters hadn't killed all the predators in the area.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Her dad probably bagged it and let her take the credit since he couldn't hunt another one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Of course, moose, deer, and other herbivores wouldn't need culling in order to maintain a stable and healthy population if hunters hadn't killed all the predators in the area."

    It's wonderful idea that if left to its own, nature is all Bambi and sunshine. But, sadly, it's not true. Wild animal populations undergo fluctuations ("boom and bust" cycles) even with a predator population intact. And the predators experience the same fluctuation as their food supplies wax and wane. Nature, unlike Disney, does not make reality nicer for an animal just because it's furry and cute.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What an accomplishment. Shooting a moose is on par with taking down a cow in a pasture. Most moose hunters up here in Northern Maine that I know roam the back roads and wait to bag their trophy within spitting distance of the woods.

    Love to see that 12YO field dress it and carry it out...now that would be an accomplishment.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I look forward to deer season this year to get out into nature and enjoy some quite and solitude for once.

    Yes, nice and quiet, the little birds singing...BLAM!!...the wind in the trees...BLAM!!...the gurgle of the brook...BLAM!!...

    Sorry, but I don't see how enjoying the quiet of nature works when you keep shattering it with gunfire.

    I'm not against hunting for food. I'm just a bit skeptical of some of the rationalizations.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great accomplishment shooting an animal... I think a greater accomplishment would be taking it down with bare hands. As far as I'm concerned, we also have human overpopulation. Who's to say that we shouldn't be "harvested"? I think hunters need to face the moose without a weapon. Would it matter then who killed whom? Either way, one of the populations would be sized down. I might even be in favour of the moose.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "But, sadly, it's not true. Wild animal populations undergo fluctuations ("boom and bust" cycles) even with a predator population intact."

    You're right, but my point still stands. There wouldn't be nearly as great an overpopulation problem among herbivores if carnivores hadn't been hunted. Besodes, while the natural cycles wax and wane, relying on hunters to keep populations healthy is very dangerous. What if the popularity of hunting greatly decreases the next decade? or what if it experiences a surge and leads to pressure on politicians to pass short-sighted hunting laws? I don't think it's appropriate to leave natural cycles at the mercy of cultural fads.

    I'll echo SL's comment: "I'm not against hunting for food. I'm just a bit skeptical of some of the rationalizations."

    ReplyDelete
  12. This just happens to be my cousin, and to let all of you know this IS a great accomplishment for someone so young to do. Anybody who doesn't understand doesn't have to leave their opinions everywhere.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...